[Chills]

It is my understanding that young earth creationists believe literally that the earth is not much more the 6k years old.

What I have been wondering about is this.
To prove this is true.... how many accepted scientific notions have to be proved wrong...

For example... If the earth is only 6000 yrs old give or take a day or two...how in the world is it that ice cores in both the Artic and Antartic show...hundreds of thousands of years in the core samples?

Or how is it that light...from galaxies several million light years or even hundreds of thousands of light years away can be showing up in such a short period of time? We know that light travels at an approximate speed and even with the slight variation IS THIS POSSIBLE?

How is it that archealogists and anthropologists find bones and artifacts that are several thousands of years older than six thousand years etc?


SO I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO ADD TO THE LISTOF HOW MANY SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED NOTIONS THEORIES ETC ARE WRONG IF THE YOUNG EARTHERS ARE CORRECT.

I am not educated in sciences and I am calling on those that are educated or at least more literate than I am ...to point to the various and probably numerous scientific theories etc that have been hitherto accepted as accurate..would indeed have to be completely wrong.... if young earthers are to be proved correct..


BTW-- I am NOT repeat NOT a young earth creationist...nor even a believer in any of the myriad of religions out there.
Thanks..

Chills.

[SmartAZ]

It's hard for me to get excited about this topic. First, it is just another case of people deciding what they want to believe and then looking for factoids to support it. In actual fact, nobody knows.

Scientists are a little better about that, but not much. One group of scientists can prove that the universe is not less than 15 billion years old. Another group can use the same data to prove that the univers is not more than 12 billion years old. Neither group can find any flaw in the other's reasoning. But both groups still believe what they have already decided to believe; neither group will admit "We just don't know."

Archeologists and geologists are likewise. One scientist will say with a straight face, "This rock is X billion years old." Another will say with an equally straight face, "We don't know how old this object is because it is made of rock." Still others date layers of coal several million years apart, but there are fossillized trees through the layers, some right side up, and some upside down. And through it all, none of them will say, "We just don't know."

Then come the bible students. Just because the human history in the bible can only be counted back 6K years, they assume the whole earth is that age. It never occurs to them that they missed a few things. The Great Bishop Usher said the earth was created at 9:00 AM September 21st 4004 BC, and that's that! What they missed is that Adam was in the garden for an unknown time. Some time after he left, he "began to be about 130 years old." It is not recorded that he aged at all while he was in the garden. Another thing they missed was that God created the heaven and earth "in the beginning". Some time later, God found the world dark at the surface, and had to disperse some waters to get day and night again. We don't know how long that period lasted. Another thing they miss is that God created the heaven and earth "in the beginning". He did not create the sun later, although it might have taken some time to form it. Students routinely confuse "create" with "form", jumble the verses around, pull out some numbers, and then demand that everyone else conform to their stupid conclusions. The only answer to such sloppy work is, "My bible doesn't say that!"

[Robert]

The Bible is a subjective volume and it is not capable of modification to accept newly discovered phenomena. This is important.
Scientists use facts to prove their hypothesis. It is possible for the scientist to be in error but then he or she can change their hypothesis. For example, let’s take a simple equation like the Pythagorean Theorem (A^2 + B^2 = C^2). All our math works but let’s say that we find when we reach 1.06 x 10 ^ 12241 that it doesn’t work. The scientist changes his equation to now fit the newly discovered facts. The Bible is not capable of this.
Basically ‘truth’ is in flux. That is, it is always changing and our perceptions of ‘truth’ changes to meet that new criteria.
The Bible is always in the past and the past is always subject to distortion. The subjectivity of the Inquisition for example. If ‘god’ changes for instance, the Bible never sees this because it has already established what ‘god’ is. If ‘god’ is greater then the Bible, the Bible never sees this because it is limited by its definition.
Let us hypothesize that ‘god’ for the benefit of mankind or not, changes his actions with respect to death and reincarnation. The Bible will never let man see this.
So we can never compare the Bible and science, one is stationary and the other is in flux. One is based on facts and inquiry and the other is not.
If we use the Bible to challenge science then we have to introduce every other religious book to challenge science and the world has already seen the chaos that subjectivity has created.

[SmartAZ]

The Bible is a subjective volume and it is not capable of modification to accept newly discovered phenomena.
That's not true, Robert. People change the bible all the time. You'll find an example in Psalms 14:1 where it says, "There is no god." All you have to do is omit half the sentence. People can change the bible any time they want to just by misquoting it or by quoting what somebody else told them the bible says. And some people don't even go to that much trouble; they just make up anything that suits them.

[H2O]

Hope ya don't mind Chills this could have just as easily been posted in my thread. It is along the lines of this post more I think.

The age of the Granite of this ole earth.......

Many have noted a conservatism in science essential to its orderly advance: skepticism toward radically new ideas enables scientific journals to retain focus, prevents anarchic descent into theoretical chaos, and makes it possible to extend currently reigning theories as far as they can bear before replacing them with other theories yet more embracive. A successfully modified, "tested" theory is preferable to a new "untried" theory. And so scientific knowledge advances in an orderly fashion, with as few wrong turns as possible.
RADIOACTIVE HALO (or RADIOHALO)
In some thin samples of certain minerals, notably mica, there can be observed tiny aureoles of discoloration which, on microscopic examination, prove to be concentric dark and light circles with diameters between about 10 and 40μm [a lone micrometer is one-millionth of a meter] and centered on a tiny inclusion. The origin of these halos (first reported between 1880 and 1890) was a mystery until the discovery of radioactivity and its powers of coloration; in 1907 Joly and Mugge independently suggested that the central inclusion was radioactive and that the alpha-emissions from it produced the concentric shells of coloration. Halos command attention because they are an integral record of radioactive decay in minerals that constitute the most ancient rocks

A parent radioactive atom decays into a daughter atom in various ways, one of which is by the emission of an alpha particle from the parent atom's nucleus. Numerous types of radioactive atoms occur in nature, but only three are the initiators of a decay series: uranium-238 (238U); uranium-235 (235 U); and thorium-232 (232Th).

(The numerical superscript signifies how heavy the element is. Isotopes of the same element have different weights but nearly identical chemical behavior-as for example (238U) and (235U). An alpha particle has a weight of 4.)

Each of the three decay-series initiators decays, by a chain of steps, into lead. For example, the alpha-decay steps in the 238U series are the following (steps not involving alpha-decay are not shown here):

238U ? 234Th 232Rn ? 218Po
234U ? 230Th 218Po ? 214Pb
230Th ? 226Ra 214Po ? 210Pb
226Ra ? 222Rn 210Po ? 206Pb

Similarly, 235U decays by a different series of steps to 207Pb, and 232Th decays to 208Pb. Note that while all the series end up with lead, each one results in a different isotope of lead.

The half-life of a given type of radioactive atom is the time during which half the atoms in any collection will decay. The half-life of 238U is 4½ billion years. Half-life, decay rate, and decay constant are closely related quantities. If we assume that the decay rate has not changed over geologic time*, and if we measure how much of a parent in a rock has decayed into its daughter; and the current rate of this decay, then we can, it is generally believed, assess the date when the parent was incorporated into the rock-that is, the date when the rock was formed. In the case of Earth's oldest rocks, this date (some 3½ billion years ago) is thought to be the time when the molten Earth first cooled down sufficiently for rocks to solidify from the primordial magma.
Note * Numerous other assumptions and technicalities also come into play.*


THE NATURE OF HALOS

If a small grain (inclusion) containing radioactive atoms is embedded in certain rock minerals, the alpha particles emitted from the radioactive atoms travel outward from the inclusion and damage the crystalline structure of the mineral, in time producing the visible discoloration typifying halos. Since each type of radioactive atom emits alpha particles with a characteristic energy, and since this energy determines how far the particle will travel in the host mineral, the diameter of a halo's rings guides researchers in determining which radioactive element is responsible for the halo. If the radioactive element in an inclusion is the initiator of a decay series, then a group of concentric halo rings results, each ring corresponding to a step in the decay series, that is, to alpha particles of a particular energy. In the case of the 238U series, with eight alpha-decay steps, there are five distinct halo rings (some of the alpha particles are so close together in energy that their rings are not distinguishable).

There is excellent evidence that the rates of radioactive processes measured in the laboratory at the present time are valid also for the remote past. If a radioactive element and its decay products are embedded in a crystal, each alpha particle emitted during disintegration travels a certain distance that depends only on the rate of that particular decay step. The more rapid this rate, the greater the energy of the alpha particles, and the farther they go before being stopped and producing a color change in the crystal.

"Suppose a speck of 238U has remained undisturbed since the formation of a mineral containing it. Then, because the rate of disintegration at each successive emission is different, eight concentric rings of mineral discoloration will be found surrounding the particle of uranium. These rings . . . have been found in many rocks of different geological ages, and the diameters of the respective rings are always the same.

"Thus it can be concluded that the rates of disintegration of uranium and thorium are constant"

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks - the granites - are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The last three alpha decay steps in the uranium-238 decay series (see glossary above) involve the successive decay of polonium-218 (218Po), polonium-2l4 (214Po), and polonium-210 (210Po). In contrast to the decay of the parent uranium, these steps occur very quickly; the half-lives of the three forms of polonium are 3.05 minutes, 164 microseconds, and 140 days, respectively. Polonium, therefore, is not thought to be observed in nature except as a daughter product of uranium and thorium decay.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time,

Then how can this polonium halo's be locked for all science to without any answer?
Here are some of possibities:
* SINGULARITIES ( TIME FLUCTUATIONS )
* INSTANTANEOUS FORMATION
* UNKNOWN
* RADON GAS

Lets look at the RADON evidence. by Lorence G. Collins


The True Origin of Polonium Halos

Biotite and coexisting myrmekite are both formed during replacement processes in a granite. It follows that Po halos in biotite that coexists with myrmekite must also be attributed to replacement processes.

The properties of radon are germane to this understanding. Radon (222Rn) is the radioactive decay product of 226Ra which evolves into 218Po. As an inert gas, it (222Rn) moves freely through cracks in rocks unimpeded by reactions with minerals lining the cracks. Evidence for this ease of radon travel is noticeable in water wells prior to earthquakes. The creeping rock movements associated with seismically-active terranes open avenues for radon-bearing water to move into lower-pressure pore space and to the surface. Therefore, on the basis of this mobility, we would expect radon to move into a shattered and sheared habitat of diorite or gabbro that was in the process of being converted to myrmekite-bearing granite.

As 222Rn is the precursor for 218Po, this polonium isotope is the first one to be formed in the decay process. Although the half life of 218Po is relatively short (3.05 minutes), enormous numbers of 222Rn concentrate as a dissolved element along with silica in hydrous fluids, which then migrate in response to tectonic pressures into porous sites in the mafic crustal rocks.

Two factors favor diorite or gabbro sites for the formation of Po halos in conjunction with myrmekite-bearing granite and pegmatite development.

(1) Biotite (a common mineral in some diorite or gabbro) is cleavable easily on the planar "leaves" of biotite "books." These cleavage surfaces constitute porosity into which hydrous fluids carrying radon gas can move.

(2) In both biotite and fluorite the crystal lattices contain sites whose negatively charged fluoride ions (F) or hydroxyl ions (OH-1) can be accommodated. These lattice sites are relatively large, and provide space where similar-sized ions can enter and take up lattice positions.

When atoms of 222Rn decay to form in succession 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po, the three polonium isotopes exist as negatively charged ions, Po-2, whose sizes are similar to the fluoride and hydroxyl ions. In this way polonium isotopes are naturally accommodated and concentrated into fluorite (CAF2) and biotite in granitic rock that is subjected to shear stress.

Thus, polonium was deposited in new crystals that grew from voluminous hydrothermal flushing of sheared and fractured, formerly-solid, mafic rock. Quartz and exotic minerals replaced mafic minerals, creating granite and pegmatite in their place. Two receptive mineral structures, (1) biotite cleavability (giving permeability to radon-carrying fluids) and (2) open-lattices in both biotite and fluorite crystals, explain why those minerals become repositories for polonium, and why the tracery of Po halos prove its ephemeral presence. The large volumes of hydrothermal fluids involved in this process are compatible with rapid growth of large pegmatite crystals of fluorite, biotite, and other minerals.

In the wall rocks near such shattered zones, where small primary crystals may be disseminated in the original diorite or gabbro, the stresses can shear them, and thus allow introduced fluids to aid recrystallization, by the annealing of microfractures, and secondary growth that enlarges the crystals. Since the large "books" of biotite in pegmatite and the small crystals of biotite in adjacent granite both develop through replacement processes at temperatures below the mineral melting intervals, these biotites and fluorites, whether growing or recrystallizing, provide ready-made lattice sites for rapid precipitation of polonium ions. Simultaneous growth of this kind of biotite and fluorite along with movement of dissolved 222Rn atoms into the crystals enables rapid accumulation of Po isotopes. These concentrations then decay to produce the Po halos.

The volumes of radon that emerge from deep in the Earth's Crust, dissolved in hydrous emanations, can be tremendous where uranium is abundant. Concentrations of this ambient radon can provide the enormous numbers of atoms needed to produce the Po decay halos. Radon emanating from a uranium source is a continuous chain of disintegration episodes that can provide a constant supply of new gas to a diorite or gabbro body as it is transformed into granite or pegmatite.

From these insights it follows that Po halos in a granite need not have been produced in a short time. Some halos may have formed early, some later. Rapid entry of radon and precipitation of polonium could occur if a gabbro or diorite site were made porous and depressurized by tectonism.

The frequent coexistence of Po halos in biotite with myrmekite in plagioclase and microcline of the same rock fabric gives a clear indication that a progressive replacement process in solid, unmelted rock has taken place. No magma is involved in this process.

Finally, the presence of 218Po, 214Po, and 210Po halos only in granites and pegmatites and the absence of 216Po, 212Po, 212Po, and 211Po halos in these same rocks become understandable. Three rationales attest to this logic.

First, the half lives of radon isotopes for the different Po isotope precursors are diagnostically different. For 222Rn in the 238U series [the source for the observed Po halos], the half life is 3.82 days. By contrast, for 219Rn in the 235U series, the half life is 3.92 seconds, and for 220Rn in the 232Th series, the half life is 54.5 seconds. The 222Rn has about 84,000 or 6,000 times as much time to enter the biotite as does 219Rn or 220Rn!

Second, the 216Po, 215Po, 212Po, and 211Po daughter isotopes have half lives that are measured in fractions of seconds rather than the 140 days for 210Po and 3.05 minutes for 218Po. The 210Po has over three million times the longevity of the sister series equivalents!

Third, the relative abundance of released 222Rn gas is proportionately much greater in most terranes than the abundances of released 219Rn and 220Rn gas.

Therefore, the combination of extremely short half lives of 219Rn and 220Rn gas [and their daughter polonium isotopes] and the relatively small quantities generated make the formation of 216Po, 215Po, 212Po, and 211Po halos impossible. These isotopes of radon and polonium, which could produce the missing Po halos, convert to Pb isotopes so quickly that their radon gas can never travel far from its source before decaying. Polonium from these isotopes can never migrate to and accumulate in distant biotite and fluorite in sufficient quantities to produce any halos.
Polonium Halos Explained

The formation of granite by replacement

Solid diorite and gabbro rock, which had previously crystallized from magma, has been subjected to repeated cataclasis and recrystallization. This has happened without melting; and the cataclasis provided openings for the introduction of uranium-bearing fluids and for the modification of these rocks to granite by silication and cation deletion.

In uranium ore-fields the extra uranium provides an abundant source of inert radon gas; and it is this gas that diffuses in ambient fluids so that incipient biotite and fluorite crystallization is exposed to it. Radon (222Rn) decays and Po isotopes nucleate in the rapidly growing biotite (and fluorite) crystals whence they are positioned to produce the Po halos.



But wait, not so fast there Lorence G. Collins



Several of these intermediate decay steps have extremely short half-lives. For instance, when radon-222 (half-life of 3.82 days) changes into polonium-218 (half-life of 3.05 minutes), it rapidly changes once again into lead-214. Likewise, when bismuth-214 (half-life of 29.7 minutes) changes into polonium-214 (half-life of 1.6 X 10-4 seconds), it rapidly changes once again into lead-210. Obviously, the atom does not linger very long in either polonium state before it decays into the next isotope in the decay chain.

Amazingly, the set of halos characteristic of polonium isotopes is sometimes found without the more slowly forming uranium halos, showing no evidence of a parent cluster of uranium - just polonium. Apparently, there never was a uranium cluster present at this location, and the original cluster must have been only polonium.

Granite is thought to require many years to cool from an original melted crystals to form, although the individual minerals, especially when concentrated, can rather quickly solidify once the temperature drops to the crucial point. Even pegmatite, a coarser-grained version of a granite, frequently occurring as veins within granite, requires an appreciable length of time to harden. Since polonium isotopes have such a very short half-life, it would be incredibly unlikely for the polonium halo to occur by itself with no evidence of its parent material. This has led Gentry to speculate that the granites were instantaneously created in a hardened condition with polonium inclusions present, which subsequently decayed.

It is contended by Gentry that polonium occlusions by themselves could not occur in a slowly cooling granite, nor could they migrate to a central location all the while decaying rapidly. The granite would have to be in a rather fluid state so that polonium could concentrate in one location in the first place, then must be solid when the polonium decayed, in order for the zone of damage to be preserved. But the granite cools too slowly, and the polonium decays too rapidly to accomplish this in any scenario other than instantaneous creation, or so it apparently seems. Evolutionists have come to call this a "tiny mystery."

Gentry feels that the evidence only fits the idea that God created polonium, with its short half-life, and allowed it to decay instantly during creation week as His signature of creation. An alternative view is that after Adam sinned, and God declared "cursed is the earth for [Adam's] sake" (Genesis 3:17), certain elements became unstable and began to decay. Obviously, we can't know for sure. God hasn't given us all the details. But the polonium halos do exist, and must be explained. The only hope for a true interpretation necessitates going back to Genesis for our basic model.

Gentry's proposal is not without critics, even among creationists. Sticky points include the fact that all of these "orphan" halos are of elements included in the decay chain of naturally occurring uranium and thorium atoms. Why have no halos of other possible elements, which are truly independent, ever been discovered? Another problem is that some of Gentry's halos, which while discovered in association with granites, were found in "pegmatite dikes," and pegmatites are suspected to form much more rapidly that the host granite, although not instantaneously. Furthermore, granites are sometimes found within Flood deposits, demonstrating conclusively that granites are not all Creation rocks. Also, how could fully formed uranium halos be found in the same rocks as the polonium halos? The uranium halos, which consist of numerous rings reflecting the longer decay chain, would seem to take a much longer time to form. Gentry proposes a short but intense burst of radioactivity, with altered decay rates for most radioactive isotopes, to account for these halos.

Gentry's proposal of more rapid decay rates at times in the past has some merit. In fact, several creationist theorists, for a number of reasons and with good observational data and Biblical hints to focus their research, have speculated on such changing of decay rates, most likely associated with the "stretching out of the heavens," mentioned often in Scripture, as occurring during Creation week, and possibly during the Flood. These projects are as yet incomplete, but are leading in some interesting directions.

Several critiques of Gentry's concept have been advanced, and as yet, some questions remain. I present this evidence here because I feel it is quite compelling, and I suspect that out of this exercise will come a strong and persuasive argument for the Biblical model of earth history.

As encouraging as these finding are, let me not leave the impression that radioisotope dating has been disproved. It has been called into question, flaws in its foundation exposed, and its results shown to be inconsistent. In short, it is in trouble, but it is still a very formidable concept in the minds of many. Much research needs to be done, and is being done at ICR and elsewhere.

So there it is, still a mystery and back to these three possibilities

* SINGULARITIES ( TIME FLUCTUATIONS )
* INSTANTANEOUS FORMATION
* UNKNOWN

There we are again Faith ! Which will it be faith in science or faith in a creation or some kind singularity, which would still be unkown.

There are hundreds of point and counter point websits and forums on this issue and I have seen both sides and found that when ever one side comes to the new ( True Origin of Polonium Halos ) then the other side finds there faults. Back and forth, back and forth even to the point of law suits.
So at least before you comment on this spend a week end reading over both sides. If you think you have finnally got the evidence you need to sell your point, then first go out to debunk your new found proof. Then you will see my point, it boils down to faith !

No link proved because I put this together from all the data I collected when I was learning about the
Polonium halo's in the granite all over the world.
H2OWhat about those Giants? (http://www.survivewell.com/christian2.html)

[Robert]

Faith is blind acceptance of the unknown.
Fine if you want to believe something without applying reason but it has no place in scientific discovery.
While the answer may very well be that we don't know the age of the universe and our diagnosis of data may be flawed it is not based on faith.

[Flint]

SmartAZ:

Your post is a bit misleading. I'm not sure if I agree with what you think, but I certainly disagree with my interpretation of how you have phrased it. So in the interests of clarification:

Scientists are a little better about that, but not much. One group of scientists can prove that the universe is not less than 15 billion years old. Another group can use the same data to prove that the univers is not more than 12 billion years old. Neither group can find any flaw in the other's reasoning. But both groups still believe what they have already decided to believe; neither group will admit "We just don't know."

The fact is, estimates of the age of the universe are based on a good deal of equivocal and highly indirect evidence. These are basically extrapolations with some hazy corrective factors. There is no difference based on current evidence and reasoning between 12 billion and 15 billion, because current evidence and reasoning permits a RANGE of possible age usually considered to be between 12 and 20 billion years. Within that range, any estimate is as reliable as any other. There are not "two groups" here by any stretch of correct representation. Nor is this in any way "believing what they have decided to believe." Cosmology has a current minimum and maximum range, that's all. And within that range, they can point to some evidence indicating a the younger end of the range, and other evidence pointing at the older end. But since that's the best we can do, within a known range all of them say "we just don't know."

Incidentally, I'm seriously bothered by your phrasing "scientists can prove." Science is incapable of proof. Proof is for artificial, formal systems like math and logic. The best science can do is say "this is probably correct, subject to change based on future data or better interpretation." So your fake conflict in ages is claimed to be based on nonexistent 'proof'. Wrong in both cases.

Archeologists and geologists are likewise. One scientist will say with a straight face, "This rock is X billion years old." Another will say with an equally straight face, "We don't know how old this object is because it is made of rock." Still others date layers of coal several million years apart, but there are fossillized trees through the layers, some right side up, and some upside down. And through it all, none of them will say, "We just don't know."

This is equally false. Dating techniques (there are many) are in remarkably close agreement with one another. The limitations of each particular dating method are well understood. Some materials, just because of their histories and natures, are more difficult to date accurately than others. This is well known. When rocks are dated, many techniques are applied, and outlier readings are discarded. There are no active disputes about the age of any common strata worldwide. There are no active disputes about the strengths and limitations of any of the dating methods; all are well documented and calibrated.

However, (and I regard this as being on a different topic, but perhaps it should be included anyway), there ARE creationists for whom the well-established ages of things are theologically unacceptable. Rather than discard their theology, they attempt to discredit all relevant human knowledge. They do dishonest things like pretending there are disagreements where there are not, pretending we don't know what in fact we do know, pretending that because these fictitious issues exist (they don't), therefore nothing anyone says is reliable or trustworthy. First, they wrongly find guilt where it doesn't exist. Then they wrongly dismiss related things through guilt by association. Finally, they discard everything we know as required by their faith. And that's simply cheating.

H2O:

Your mythology may make you happy (Merry Christmas to you!) but unfortunately it is long discredited (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html) and outside creationist circles totally rejected on the merits. Unfortunately for Gentry, when he stepped outside his specialty (and he surely did), he left his knowledge behind but took his religion with him.

No link proved because I put this together from all the data I collected when I was learning about the Polonium halo's in the granite all over the world.This is not an excuse. If you used many sources, cite many sources.

[member31]

First, it is just another case of people deciding what they want to believe and then looking for factoids to support it. In actual fact, nobody knows.

nobody knows the origin of life, but descent is embraced by the RCC.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

[Plaid-Man Individual]

No link proved because I put this together from all the data I collected when I was learning about the Polonium halo's in the granite all over the world.

Well, let's see... your first source in which you copied word for word... paragraph for paragraph (specifically "The Nature of Halos" portion) was from here:

http://www.halos.com/book/ctm-app-04-b.htm

And, how about a little..., errr, ahhhh, compilation of "all the data [you] collected" from varied sources (word for word) from this site (check out "The True Origin of Polonium Halos" sections from both H2O's post and the following link):

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/revised8.htm

And further plagiari..., errr, ummmm, compiled from this site to form the entirety of your rebuttal (word for word) :

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c009.html

Which was excerpted from The Young Earth by John D. Morris, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994.
=======================

Adding these reference links to your post would be appropriate.

[Chills]

I must confess most the replies are above my head...

but thanks to all.

[Flint]

Chills:

Let's say you were looking around and found what you considered an anomaly. It surely calls for an explanation, because one of the underlying assumptions of science is that reality is internally consistent, and that there are no paradoxes. Anomalous observations by convention don't indicate paradoxes, then. Instead, they indicate (a) lousy observations; or (b) perfectly good observations incorrectly understood.

The Polonium Halo observations are perfectly good observations of halos. The problem is fairly simple: IF Gentry is interpreting these halos correctly, then everything else in geology is necessarily dead wrong! And a great deal must also be dead wrong with physics, astronomy, cosmology, and related matters. Conversely, there are alternative explanations which are simple, replicable, perfectly ordinary, and completely consistent with everything else science knows. Finally, if Gentry's interpretation is correct, it fails to explain the nonexistence of literally dozens of other Polonium halos that could be formed equally easily, and which would mean paradoxes. None of which are (of course) ever found.

Now, you might wonder why someone would choose an interpretation inconsistent with everything we know, when a simpler consistent explanation is available. And you don't have to dig very hard to discover the reason - it's because the false interpretation is consistent with false religious beliefs, while the correct interpretation contradicts the false religious beliefs. And when religion and reality conflict, the True Believer rejects the reality.

It's not that difficult to extrapolate Gentry's Belief-inspired error a millionfold to encompass all of Young Earth Creationism, which necessarily requires the rejection of all human knowledge about everything. We're not talking about casual error, or inadvertent error, or (sad to say) even correctible error here. We have left the world of science far behind at this point, and find ourselves mired deep in the world of abnormal psychology.

[PhoenixFeather]

It is my understanding that young earth creationists believe literally that the earth is not much more the 6k years old.

What I have been wondering about is this.
To prove this is true.... how many accepted scientific notions have to be proved wrong...

For example... If the earth is only 6000 yrs old give or take a day or two...how in the world is it that ice cores in both the Artic and Antartic show...hundreds of thousands of years in the core samples?

The simplistic reply to arguments such as this is that The Creator, in His mysterious omnipotence, decided to create the world 6K years ago, but make it appear considerably older than that.

IME, you can't argue science with creationists, because they always have that to fall back upon.

[H2O]

Hey I'm not trying to sell you on Jesus.
I'm just showing the difficulty with science.
There are more and more unexplainable's all the time. When evolutionist find out about these as they surface, they all come unglued and go on there own defence agenda.
There is no way to absolutely prove science explains the age of the earth and universe. We know and this can not be argued that the earth is not flat ! But yet there was a day when the thinkers believed it was flat ! Just as it was even then possible that in time new discoveries would prove the best minds of the day wrong, so it is today.......
Pictures below Unexplained, hammer locked in stone dated thousands of years, Find your own link.
Giant foot prints 23 inches long in stone creek bed. Find your own link
Giant femur from some Giant dude !( Mt. Blanco Fossil Mu. Find your link

And I had that information on my hard drive about the Polonium Halos and when I collected it I had no intent to post it in this or any other forum. Find your link
Accusing me of plagiarism, Pleeeease give it a rest !
Find your faith in the God of forces ( science )
You know what I believe, you think !
I am suggesting here only that it is dam near to maybe impossible to prove the age of the Earth or the universe ! Unless you want to build you theory on some sort of faith in an assumption at some point. :beer:

[Flint]

H2O:

Hey I'm not trying to sell you on Jesus.Then why not make an attempt to be honest in what you present?

I'm just showing the difficulty with science.No, you are not. Science has plenty of difficulties; what you present bears no relation to them.

There are more and more unexplainable's all the time.Not so. Remember that just because creationists reject an explanation, doesn't make what they reject unexplainable.

When evolutionist find out about these as they surface, they all come unglued and go on there own defence agenda.No, they do not. They explain what they can, and admit what they can't.

There is no way to absolutely prove science explains the age of the earth and universe.Science cannot provide an absolute proof of anything at all. Even the idea that the earth rotates is a theory dreamed up to explain the evidence.

We know and this can not be argued that the earth is not flat ! But yet there was a day when the thinkers believed it was flat !Probably not, unless you are talking about people well before the time of the Phoenicians or ancient Greeks. However, there is a MYTH that people once believed the world was flat. But we wish to know the facts as well, right?

Just as it was even then possible that in time new discoveries would prove the best minds of the day wrong, so it is today.......Yes and no. There are always wrong ideas. Nearly every tested hypothesis in science turns out to be at least partially wrong. Being wrong is how we learn.

Pictures below Unexplained, hammer locked in stone dated thousands of years, Find your own link.I'll make a deal with you. When I present something, I'll provide my link. When YOU present something, you present YOUR link. OK? Your examples are a crock.

Accusing me of plagiarism, Pleeeease give it a rest !You could have mentioned your sources, then. Why not give credit where it is due? Based on nothing but the words you cut and pasted, Plaid-man Individual was able to track down your sources. Why couldn't you do it?

I am suggesting here only that it is dam near to maybe impossible to prove the age of the Earth or the universe ! Unless you want to build you theory on some sort of faith in an assumption at some point. You might wish to learn even a tiny bit before talking about it. You'd be much more persuasive that way. You don't understand what science is, you don't know what scientific proof is, you have no concept of evidence, you show no sense of recognizing how multiple sources of evidence fit together, you don't know what assumptions are, and you don't seem to think any of that is necessary!

Let me offer you some helpful advice. In religion, you get to make up whatever you damn please, and that's fine. In science, you need a LOT more, and you don't even know it. In science, you do NOT get to make up whatever you want. You must support it with facts, and those facts must satisfy even those who disagree with you. YOU, on the other hand, refuse even to provide a link to Answers in Genesis, where you seem to do your "research". You are giving intelligent Christians a bad name, so please be more careful.

[SmartAZ]

This is one time I agree with Flint. Sloppy research is a no-no in any field.

[H2O]

Flint, you seem like an inteligent person to me.

You post some facts that prove the age of the earth, that can not be disputed.

I remain unconvinced, that you could !
If you can do that it would nice.
I am not able to always provide the links you desire.
And last I am not trying to prove Creationism here !
I just do not see any good proof, anywhere !

Links, are great I agree !

You are giving intelligent Christians a bad name, so please be more careful.
Flint, alot you know about that you think do ya.
You judge in areas you have little knowledge, the Christian issue !
And I will add that one day you will understand that clearly !

[goodwater]

A few billion years here, a few billion years there, pretty soon you're talking some serious time.

[Flint]

H2O:

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. You do realize (don't you?) that there is no such thing as proof in science? Instead, there is the "best-fit" explanation for known evidence. You ask for facts that can not be disputed, and there are many. But what those facts *mean* is certainly disputed, and must be. The instant science stops disputing the meaning of the facts, there is no more science. Nobody is looking for "good proof" except the religious types. What science looks for instead is good evidence. Evidence can't prove anything, but can indicate what is probably true with a high level of confidence, in some cases, subject to change at any time.

I suggest you plug "age of earth" into Google and start reading what comes up. You might also be interested in reading some of the recent (within the last month or two) astronomical observations about stars with dust rings, adding support to the currently most popular theory about how rocky planets (like earth) get formed. It's all interesting stuff.

[Chills]

Flint....
I think you are correct my original question was poorly stated.

[Plaid-Man Individual]

...Find your link
Accusing me of plagiarism, Pleeeease give it a rest !

Because you chose to include the following paragraph in your lengthy post #5 there is more than a hint of possible plagiarism:

Several critiques of Gentry's concept have been advanced, and as yet, some questions remain. I present this evidence here because I feel it is quite compelling, and I suspect that out of this exercise will come a strong and persuasive argument for the Biblical model of earth history.

The highlighted sentences of this paragraph, which are NOT your own words but come from the christiananswers.com webpage, clearly indicate a high probability of your impropriety. And your indignation at this accusation is clearly negated by this fact.[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]:yes:

Just a FYI... from dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plagiarize


pla·gia·rize Audio pronunciation of "plagiarize" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plj-rz)
v. pla·gia·rized, pla·gia·riz·ing, pla·gia·riz·es
v. tr.

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.
2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).


v. intr.

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

Or should I have responded to you in the same childish manner as you responded to Flint with "Find your own link"? [ ][ ][ ]:ll:

P.S. I shouldn't tell you this, but on your linked webpage (I seem to recall you claiming this site) at survivewell.com (the one link you seem to have no problem nor hesitation providing; who would've figured?)

( http://www.survivewell.com/christian2.html )

in which you (or whoever) state:

There were GIANTS in those DAYS

There DNA remains in the blood lines and we sometimes get genetic throw backs. Yes Giants many of them alive and around today.

The second "There" should be spelled "Their", and "throw backs" is one word.[ ][ ][ ] :re:[ ][ ][ ]:beer:[ ][ ][ ]:whatever:

[Flint]

Not to mention that "giants" are not by any stretch the result of the expression of genes otherwise not expressed. Instead, acromegaly is caused by prolonged overproduction of GH by the pituitary gland. This is often caused by tumors.

But of course, I'm talking about facts here and not myths. Another word of advice: it takes an impressive amount of knowledge and sophistication to do an even slightly plausible job of misrepresenting reality to force it to fit misunderstood scripture. You are way over your head. If you have this skill, you can sometimes fool ignorant people *provided* they are content with their ignorance, and never question anything that strokes their needs. Lacking this skill, you only produce thigh-slappers that make informed Christians cringe.

[H2O]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=timebomb2000+%22Flint%22&btnG=Google+Search

This I believe shows what your about Mr.Flint flintc@mindspring.com

I was trying to follow the intent of this thread as I saw it. I am about to put you on that Ignore feature, this will cure the problem.

If the link above fails then all anyone has to do is type
(( timebomb2000 "Flint" )) into the google search engine.
They have a handy little feature showing archived threads.

Flint your in need of doctor, whom doles out those happy pills, Bud !

Why not try and input information that supports what the thread/topic is about.
All you do is rant about what people post looking for any chance to debate-debunk-troll-flame and so on. You have no creativity of your own and seem to enjoy your long long habit of attacking folks in all the forums you can find accross the web.

Yes its true I miss -spell and I am not perfect. But I am not out to bash-attack-debunk-deface and stir up folks as a ongoing MO.
You do that, THATS WHAT YOU DO, thats all you do.
Your done I got your number !
PS I spydered the web with your search parameters.. Got the goods...
--------------------------
Chills I am sorry I posted in your thread, who knew the likes of flint..
I will leave it go.....
--------------------------
Mr. Plaid-Man Individual whats your problem. Got a tick ?
Gramometer head...LOL

[Plaid-Man Individual]

This I believe shows what your about Mr.Flint flintc@mindspring.com
HaHaHaHa... That should be "you're" Mr. all knowledgeable about "The Nature of Halos" waterboy... HaHaHa... And that's an email address NOT a web link.

Flint your in need of doctor...
Again, that's "you're" as in "you are" Mr. Genius about "The Nature of Halos" waterboy. Someone as smart as you should know this!

Your done I got your number !Oops, not again! A mighty brain of your caliber that knows all there is to know about "The Nature of Halos" should not make these stupid mistakes; not to count all of your mistakes in punctuation and basic grammar. It's hard to believe you passed the 3rd grade there waterboy (or should we call you Jetho Waterboy?) much less know all there is to know about Halos and (*snicker, snicker*) Giants.

Mr. Plaid-Man Individual whats your problem. Got a tick ?
Gramometer head...LOL
Gramometer? Thank you for thinking I'm a device for measuring bonding forces... but not quite applicable. :eek:

And as for your "tick" comment... I'm the TICK to a clock TOCK and TIME has revealed you for who you really are... a recalcitrant plagiarist whose enlightenment is equivalent to a half watt bulb (or is that whit?)! :whatever:

[TheoryMan]

This was actually an interesting thread until the personal attacks started....

--

PS: And I tend to avoid religion based threads...

[Flint]

TheoryMan:

This can still be an interesting thread. If you have anything you wish to discuss, I'd be glad to join you. The sheer volume of misinformation creationists have ginned up is rather stunning.

I can see that, hard as I try, I continue to overestimate those with the religious mind-virus. I wonder if H2O can even spell "loser" correctly, twice in a row. Incidentally (but not too surprisingly), H2O got my e-mail address wrong. It's flintc@knology.net in case anyone wishes to communicate with me directly. A word of warning, though: Don't make the topic sound like spam!

Oh yes, as a side-note to H2O, since he seems to be trying to figure out how to use Google. There are plenty of on-line grammars and spell-checkers and dictionaries. The only excuses for the constant errors you make are typos and laziness. In your case, it's simple laziness, the same problem you had trying to produce links to the material you quoted without attribution. Rather than saying "I'm too lazy to provide links and I'm too lazy to spell correctly either" you might actually develop 6th-grade level communication skills. Otherwise, someone might suspect your religious babbling is as poorly researched as everything else you've produced so far.

[H2O]

Dear Chills sorry, I just feel the need to answer that Plaid Boy..
I will try and stir the thread back...

Congrats on grammatical rule ! You're over the top in your compulsion. I see your a bit of a grammer NUT CASE !!!!!!!

MR. Plaid-Man Individual or I should say ( Plaid-Orthography Commando )
You seem to as did Flint have mental issues as well. This compulsory addiction to blow-off and forget what ever the topic of a thread may be, but to seek with exactness looking for those English gaps in spelling and typo's.
Get a life, Plaid-Orthography Commando !
Why don't try and find one of those Forums that targets the hobby you have, if that is what is up with you.....????.....!!!!!.....
You could start a ( Thread ) right on this Forum and Bitchhh, all you want..LOL
Perhaps its not a hobby, but a psychologic illness. That is what I am seeing in your personality.

Plaid-Orthography Commando, you're one track mind however seems to think that the English language has its perfection, WRONG, Plaid boy !

My native language may not be English. And there are a lot of people in the world that struggle with this devised language. Literacy has less to do with intelligence and creativity then one may assume. So just remember, most of the spelling mistakes in English are the fault of the standard orthography, not of the speller.
Is spelling pronunciation possible. Is it possible to pronounce words as they are spelled? What is an alphabet? Is there a grapheme-phoneme correspondence table for all of the important sounds in a particular language? What about the a writing system in which a set of symbols represents the important sounds or phonemes of a language. Is the English writing system perfect?

The traditional English spelling system [TES] uses historical spellings but not the historical long vowel sounds or the consistent historical alphabet. As a result, about 60% of the words are not pronounced as they are spelled.
You are incorrect in you're assuming that people's intelligence can be judged by their ability to use correct grammar and orthography in any language. You also seem to be way down there on the scale of intelligence based on you're quick readiness to attack, speller's who error. Where ? Where is ? You're meaningful input to this thread? Stay on topic dirt bag plaid !
Why not get into the spirit of communication with others and behave in a manner worthy the exchange of ideas. Why not, look for the good in people instead of all you're negative thinking ! Be a nice person, exorcise your demons ! Be polite ! Get with the program and have an exchange of idea's using a humble approach when responding to a post in a thread. Get off my asssss and leave folk's alone with you're ( Pathetic- Commando-like-Psycho-Extrasensory-Orthographic- Compulsion )..
Hows that for some total English language butchering... Sad-Man Individual.
A thread would not be complete without grammar peeves and mistakes..YeeHaw.
RE-READ so you do not forget what a complete ASSSS your are !

Your,,,opps Im mean, opps,,, I meant You're getting close to me breaking out the ignore feature !
LOL @ U
The thread topic !
Try looking into the plate movement across the globe.. Here you will find the time date stamp for the age of this old Earth....Creativity is a sign of a wonderful mind ...by H2O the possible Plaguer
Hey if you quote is that Plagiarism..? LOL
Stop that Plaguer PlaidMan Individual

I have that ignore gadit working on Flint now so I will not see anymore of his babbling and insults... PS He never did input anything about the post topic to date, of his own work ! :no:

[Flint]

Chills:

You may consider visiting the talkorigins web site, accessing their archives, and digging in. There you will find months or years worth of reading material directly addressing your question. It can be a bit overwhelming at first. As I wrote, the volume of misinformation to be correct boggles the mind, and grows daily. Some of the misinformation is skillfully presented, some is very technical. Good luck.

[H2O]

Plate Tectonics and the age of the Earth...
http://survivewell.com/tectonics.html
:)

[Chills]

H20

Dear Chills sorry, I just feel the need to answer that Plaid Boy..
I will try and stir the thread back...

Congrats on grammatical rule ! You're over the top in your compulsion. I see your a bit of a grammer NUT CASE !!!!!!!

I am not sure what you're referring to in the above statement.

No need to apologize to me..... actually I think the whole point of discussion on the net is DRIFT....and tangential thoughts..etc..but thats just me..I enjoy the drift... it is kind of like collective creativity or brain storming..

If you are referring to me in the 'grammer' remark, I dont understand.

As far as my original post and question... I was niavely thinking that we could make a list of various theories that would have to be debunked etc to lend any credibility to the young earth creation theory...

But what the hell.. alot of neat stuff here...

I just hope folks is having fun...
:yes:

[Flint]

Chills,

Try talkorigins, as I recommended. I vaguely recall someone WAS making a list, I think it was a list of named scientific disciplines that would be contradicted or rendered irrelevant to anything, if YECists were correct. Last I heard, they had named *hundreds* of disciplines that would be eliminated. For theories, I think you would need a heirarchical or tree structure. EVERY major theory would be impacted, but major theories are composed of less major theories and so on, some of which would be modified and most of which would be eliminated.

Understand that scientific theories are inter-referential. They are not standalone boxes, they have fuzzy borders. And this being the case, the YEC position would basically invalidate everything science has ever discovered, to one degree or another.

[Chills]

Chills,

Try talkorigins, as I recommended. I vaguely recall someone WAS making a list, I think it was a list of named scientific disciplines that would be contradicted or rendered irrelevant to anything, if YECists were correct. Last I heard, they had named *hundreds* of disciplines that would be eliminated. For theories, I think you would need a heirarchical or tree structure. EVERY major theory would be impacted, but major theories are composed of less major theories and so on, some of which would be modified and most of which would be eliminated.


Flint... yup... I was generally lookin for a basic list of ...

I have been wondering about that for some time and wondered just how much would be impacted ..etc..

thanks for the link ..........I will chek it out as time allows.

[Flint]

Chills:

Allow a lot of time. The talkorigins.org site's archives, if all printed in a book with large pages and fine print, would run to the tens of thousands of pages. The site is truly massive, and yet strangely limited. It focuses on bogus claims made by creationists, and thus omits the VAST bulk of scientific knowledge and theory creationists have not (yet) found reason to lie about -- probably because they don't realize it exists.

Incidentally, if you are interested in the scientific topics themselves, rather than in the religious denial and resulting controversy, let me know. There's a lot of accessible material out there.

[H2O]

Chills :)





I meant
MR. Plaid-Man
Congrats on grammatical rule ! You're over the top in your compulsion. I see your a bit of a grammer NUT CASE !!!!!!!
MR. Plaid-Man

[Plaid-Man Individual]

H2O:

I'm sure the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" thanks you for revealing the real you. Good job! :bigtup:

Carry on! :beer:

[Brooks]

Chills, one thing to consider, if you're into the notion of a whole earth flood at some point, is that the flood had to be followed by one or more ice ages in order to form the glacially-derived soils of the northern regions. 6,000 years really doesn't allow that kind of time.

[Flint]

Brooks:

Actually, the problems with a global flood are pervasive. Worldwide, the lack of positive evidence for the biblical flood is both comprehensive, yet small in comparison to the positive evidence *against* a floood. Indeed, almost everything in geology prohibits one. The neat thing about a flood (as opposed to the creation tale) is that a flood hypothesis implies millions of predictions, about fossils and strata and soils and oil and really just about everything you can name. And these predictions fail wildly, without exception. Every single one of them!

Now, if you think this universal failure would cause any Believer to doubt the historical accuracy of a global flood, you don't understand belief. Evidence is irrelevant; otherwise it wouldn't be belief.

[SmartAZ]

It's not likely that the whole earth was flooded. The bible says "all the earth", but that doesn't necessarily mean "all without exception". It could mean "all the earth that concerns the story."

[Flint]

SmartAZ:

Consider: People tend to live along rivers for many reasons: drinking and irrigation water, convenient waste disposal system, transportation, and so on. Rivers flood. People living along rivers get flooded. There are few if any mythologies from any culture that do not include (probably exaggerated) floods.

Next, consider that physical mobility was rare until quite recently. It was the exceptional person who EVER traveled more than 1 day's walk from where he was born. So for story purposes, "the whole world" basically means "everywhere I've ever been", also known as "as far as the eye can see."

[Plaid-Man Individual]

It's not likely that the whole earth was flooded. The bible says "all the earth", but that doesn't necessarily mean "all without exception". It could mean "all the earth that concerns the story."

But I thought the Bible was written by God, and with God having the ultimate overview of this planet, because HE says "all the earth" would that not mean the entire globe's land masses were covered by water? (from a biblical perspective of course)

[TheoryMan]

"But I thought the Bible was written by God, "

As I remember, the churches I know anything about say that the bible was inspired by god, but, written, (and edited, and re-edited), by man....

--

[Plaid-Man Individual]

As I remember, the churches I know anything about say that the bible was inspired by god, but, written, (and edited, and re-edited), by man....
This is a slight divergence (as most discussions do) from the topic of the original post , but I have also heard the "inspired by God" explanation. I think we are dealing with the semantical interpretations of the word "written". I was raised Catholic and was told that God had "authored" the Bible, and Godly men had "penned" his word to paper which subsequently became the Bible... the "Word Of God", and then further told that Jesus was God and also the "Word of God"... :rolleyes:

So, when I said "written" maybe "authored" would have been a more accurate communication to reflect what I was actually taught in my early indoctrination.

I agree that the Bible was physically handwritten by man (with inspired? ulterior motives), and redacted many, many times by humans with other (inspired?) ulterior motives; that's one reason why I'm a skeptic.

[Flint]

I think the provenance of the Bible is right on target. YEC has nothing to do with reality, and everything to do with how one chooses to interpret one's preferred translation of one's preferred redaction of one's preferred excerpt of the Bible.

[TheoryMan]

"This is a slight divergence (as most discussions do) from the topic of the original post"

Not my intention, and I'm not sure it is. Is not the source of the YEC theories based on a 'literal' reading of the bible?


--

[Plaid-Man Individual]

The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible is the sum and substance of Young Earth Creationism, and the dubious origin and authenticity of Biblical scripture is a principal element in refuting most (if not all) of the utterly flawed arguments supporting Bible based beliefs, including YEC.

Chills' request in the original post:
It is my understanding that young earth creationists believe literally that the earth is not much more the 6k years old.

What I have been wondering about is this.
To prove this is true.... how many accepted scientific notions have to be proved wrong...

SO I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO ADD TO THE LIST OF HOW MANY SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED NOTIONS THEORIES ETC ARE WRONG IF THE YOUNG EARTHERS ARE CORRECT.

I am not educated in sciences and I am calling on those that are educated or at least more literate than I am ...to point to the various and probably numerous scientific theories etc that have been hitherto accepted as accurate..would indeed have to be completely wrong.... if young earthers are to be proved correct..

I think it is much easier to show the flawed positions of Young Earth Creationists (YEC), (and Creationists and ID'iots too) than to list all the scientific tenets and theories that would be negated if YEC is correct, because to conjecture YEC as correct would involve saying that the entire scientific method is discredited and all observational evidences useless. So, in a back-handed sort of way I guess the refutations of a universal flood and of provenance of the Bible to have relevancy to the original post, and anyway, I stated it was only a "slight divergence" from his original request (actually, I started the slight drift when I questioned SmartAz about God writing the Bible). No Biggy...

This has been a very enjoyable, interesting and informative thread.[ ][ ][ ]:cheers:

[SmartAZ]

Some well known anomalies (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm)

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Some well known anomalies (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm)

And how does this link relate to the original post's topic of YEC discrediting science? I'm familiar with most of these so-called "paranormal artifacts" from many previous creationists arguments that cite these anomalous objects in an attempt to support their god-faith. I find it quite unsettling for people to first assume every "unknown" to be god-created and only supernaturally created by god; no other natural explanation considered or acceptable. I only have the time to address a couple of these curious finds, the Dropa Stones and the Ica Stones, but I'm sure these are indicative of all the other objects cited in that link.

The Dropa Stones Investigated:

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa032601b.htm

from the linked article:

Well, the lessons that I've learned from Uncle P. are not so easily forgotten, so when I again came across the story of the Dropa disks, I decided to investigate it as best I could.

The first thing that I did was to try to find the source of the original story. Hartwig Hausdorf says this in The Chinese Roswell:
"… Sputnik broke the story…. The Belgian magazine BUFOI(Belgian UFO Investigator) picked it up as well as the esoteric German publication Vegetarian Universe using not only Soviet but Japanese sources."

A few pages later, he says:
"…Dr. Vyatcheslav Saitzev, who first told the story of the alien disks of Bara Kara Ula for the Soviet Magazine Sputnik…

However, in the Sources for that chapter, the oldest source he cites is a 1960 article in Russian Digest, not by Saitzev, but by V. Ritsch and M. Tschernenko, titled Were Alien Visitors on Earth?. (Note that 1960 would have been two years before Tsum Um Nui announced his translation of the disks' message.) He then cites the Vegetarian Universe article in 1962, and not until 1968 an article by Saitzev in Sputnik number 1! Von Daniken's 1970 Gods From Outer Space is the next source given.

If the confusion of where, when, and by whom the original article was published isn't bad enough, those Russian magazines were very sensationalistic, as is noted by Hausdorf. They were like Iron Curtain versions of the supermarket tabloids we see today. Not the most reliable sources of information. The German and Belgian articles were basically just reprints of the Russian one, although Hausdorf says they cited Japanese sources as well (unnamed)...

...some enlightening information about Gordon Creighton's investigation of the Dropa story:

Erich von Daniken gives as his source for this story a conversation in Moscow in 1968 with Soviet writer Aleksandr Kazantsev and records that the discs themselves and the documentation of their discovery is preserved at the (then) Peking Academy of Prehistory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences at T'ai-Pei in Taiwan. However, journalist Gordon Creighton contacted a number of Chinese academics about the Dropa stones story, and none of them had even heard of the story. Then he contacted Soviet writer Aleksandr Kazantsev to verify the account that had been given to Von Daniken. The surprising response was that Kazantsev had not given Von Daniken the story; rather that Von Daniken had given it to Kazantsev!

The Ica Stones debunked:

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

from the linked article:

...Cabrera's story does not have the ring of verisimilitude about it, though it does have a certain charm. The story certainly has found several ready audiences who have found a niche in their own belief systems for the stones. Never mind that the belief systems not only contradict one another, but are also contrary to the preponderance of the scientific evidence. Creationists, mythohistorians, and extraterrestrialists are in a jihad against belief in evolution where apparently it is one's duty to make the preposterous seem plausible.

Don't be suckered in to believing everything you read. Curious, under-explained objects do NOT equal "paranormal" origins nor support the "god did it" positions of creationists under any circumstances! I encourage everyone to investigate these "curious objects" for themselves. Gullibility is not a virtue.

[SmartAZ]

Yes, I know very well that all of these have been debunked in one way or another, but even the debunkings leave a suspicion that science is not always what it is claimed to be. An example is the spark plug: the exact brand and year of manufacture have been identified, but that still leaves the stone to be explained, and scientists are still at a loss to explain how it could be formed in less than 80 years. And these are the same scientists who firmly assure us that the earth is X billion years old (whatever the current value of X is), based on their studies of ... rocks!

[SmartAZ]

Plaid Man Individual:
The literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible is the sum and substance of Young Earth Creationism, and the dubious origin and authenticity of Biblical scripture is a principal element in refuting most (if not all) of the utterly flawed arguments supporting Bible based beliefs, including YEC.
Well, I agree with that, except I would say, "The liberal misinterpretation ..." It's extremely hard to intelligently discuss a topic when neither side can get it's facts straight, and sometimes can't get its fiction straight either!

It's a mistake to base any scientific theory on the bible when so few people read the bible. Even people who study the bible a lot think "literal interpretation" means the nonsense they learned in Children's Bible Study. They think they read the bible, but they actually just look at it and substitute what someone has TOLD them it says. The seven day creation is so firmly rooted in people's minds that it takes weeks of class time for them to unlearn it so they can start learning what the bible actually says. (It actually says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." In the beginning, get it? Not seven days. Creation was done before the seven days began.)

On the other hand we have the scientists, who will usually admit that some of the things they think they know ain't so. But that honesty does not trickle down to the people who use the scientists' current pronouncements. And both sides of this controversy desperately want to cut through the fog of uncertainty and declare something to be certain. More important, there is a class of people who want to decide what will be taught to the children, and they are in the habit of using courts to enforce their desires.

Now I'll tell you a secret: judges are as sensitive to public opinion as any politician. If they were primarily concerned about right and wrong, they would refuse to hear any case about science or religion because neither side can prove rightness or wrongness. If they were only concerned about interpreting laws, they would throw the case out because it is not a matter of law. But public opinion is strong on both sides, so they are in a bind: there are no right answers, and they can't throw the case out!

[Plaid-Man Individual]

Yes, I know very well that all of these have been debunked in one way or another, but even the debunkings leave a suspicion that science is not always what it is claimed to be."Claimed to be" by whom, the creationists? Obviously, creationists don't have the slightest clue as to what science really is. Scientific investigations are what have debunked these silly hoaxes!

...but that still leaves the stone to be explained, and scientists are still at a loss to explain how it could be formed in less than 80 years.Untrue! This has been thoroughly explained.
from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

The Geologic Evidence: Is the Coso Artifact Encased in a Geode?
When it comes to the geologic evidence, the most stunning claim is that the artifact was discovered in a geode. As Donald Chittick has noted, formation of a geode requires significant amounts of time. But what is often overlooked is that the Coso Artifact possesses no characteristics that would classify it as a geode. It is true that the original discoverers were looking for geodes on the day the artifact was found. But this alone is insufficient evidence that the artifact is a geode.

Geodes consists of a thin outer shell, composed of dense chalcedonic silica, and are filled with a layer of quartz crystals. The Coso Artifact does not possess either feature. Discoverer Virginia Maxey referred to the material covering the artifact as "hardened clay" and noted that it had picked up a miscellaneous collection of pebbles, including a "nail and washer." Analysis of the surface material is noted as having a hardness of Mohs 3, which is not very hard and certainly much softer than chalcedony.

Other arguments regarding the ancient source of the Coso Artifact focus on the alleged fossil shells encrusted on the surface. As noted earlier, if a nail and washer were also found on the surface, the significance of the fossil shells is seriously diminished. Even creationist literature notes how surface materials can lead to mistaken assumptions about the true age of individual objects. Creation Ex Nihilo's June-August 1998 issue features fence wire that had become encased by surface materials including "fossil" seashells (quotes in the original article).
And these are the same scientists who firmly assure us that the earth is X billion years old (whatever the current value of X is), based on their studies of ... rocks!Name one! Again, this is also untrue.[ ][ ][ ]:re: